Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17037945›Full record

ArticlePaediatric drugs2006

Clinical trials research in pediatrics: strategies for effective collaboration between investigator sites and the pharmaceutical industry.

Andrew Bush

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Paediatric drugs, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Andrew BushImperial School of Medicine at National Heart and Lung Institute, London, UK. a.bush@rbh.nthames.nhs.uk

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a paucity of clinical trials work in children, which leads to the frequent use of off-label and unlicensed medications in this very vulnerable group. Clinical trials work in children may be more difficult than in adults, and there are certainly ethical constraints. However, the differences between adults and children, and at different stages of childhood development, mandate strategies to improve this situation rather than continually relying on extrapolation from adult studies. Therefore, new strategies have to be established between the pharmaceutical industry and pediatric centers to facilitate effective trials work. These must be based on a clear and mutual understanding of the differences between working with children and adults. Disease phenotypes may be completely different in children; for example, wheeze in infants is not miniature adult asthma. Clinical trial design must be practical, and a trial is more likely to succeed if a simple design is utilized, with minimal interference with school work and the work of carers. The new UK initiative, 'Medicines for Children', should go a long way towards addressing the problem, and increase the evidence base for the utilization of medications in pediatric practice.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchClinical Trials as TopicCooperative BehaviorDrug IndustryPediatricsChildChild, PreschoolDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsHumansInfantInfant, NewbornPharmaceutical PreparationsResearch DesignPharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.